Topper wrote:You can't blame GM's and owners for signing these deals. The structure was permitted under the old CBA and teams can not collude not to sign these deals.

Isn't the bigger issue with those deals insurance coverage? I think the insurance is becoming a major issue for some of these teams. If they're having to insure contracts at 5% of value and not past a certain amount of years, that is a huge expense and potential liability.

That may be the case, first I have heard of it. Those insurance premiums would be something some big market teams would be willing to cover while smaller market teams would be left out.

Under the previous CBA, many of the long term deals were not bad deals and Luongo's may very well have been the best of the bunch when you weigh in player's skill, age, term, real salary and cap hit.

dbr wrote:One thing I don't get is the owners claim today that the players are moving the goalposts.. is it just me or is one of their three "must haves" (a 10 year CBA) completely new? They made a proposal earlier this fall for a six year deal..

Owners said we'll throw in another $100mil in 'make whole' but we MUST HAVE these 3 things.

Package deal, take it or leave it, and Fehr says we'll take the extra $100mil, but screw the "must haves".

dbr wrote:One thing I don't get is the owners claim today that the players are moving the goalposts.. is it just me or is one of their three "must haves" (a 10 year CBA) completely new? They made a proposal earlier this fall for a six year deal..

Owners said we'll throw in another $100mil in 'make whole' but we MUST HAVE these 3 things.

Package deal, take it or leave it, and Fehr says we'll take the extra $100mil, but screw the "must haves".

Bettman says "Well screw you Mr Fehr!"

I tossed this one at Topper (nicely, I seen what happened in the bear baiting thread ) but I think I'm on his list...Anyway Bettman mentioned that he had to sell the money for the make whole dealy as buying a couple of extra years of peace 8 vs 10 years...

In other words the money they save on salaries for those two years will pay for the make whole...

My question is: is that not exactly what the PA got upset about before, having to pay for their own losses on contracts already signed for??

dbr wrote:One thing I don't get is the owners claim today that the players are moving the goalposts.. is it just me or is one of their three "must haves" (a 10 year CBA) completely new? They made a proposal earlier this fall for a six year deal..

Owners said we'll throw in another $100mil in 'make whole' but we MUST HAVE these 3 things.

Package deal, take it or leave it, and Fehr says we'll take the extra $100mil, but screw the "must haves".

Bettman says "Well screw you Mr Fehr!"

It wasn't an extra $100 million to "make whole", it was $50 million to make whole and $50 to pensions.

Gary took the "w" away last night. New motto is make hole. It's a ripper.

Whenever they play hockey again, I'll be back, watching intensely, the addiction stays. But I can't stomach another article/report analyzing the lockout negotiations/status. I'm avoiding it all as best as possible until we get to the other side. I still stay with my original prediction, hockey by Jan 1, but who knows....until the puck drops.

In other words the money they save on salaries for those two years will pay for the make whole...

Where are the savings you're talking about are the players not going to be paid !! , or, does not every player make his own salary decision, with the aide of a high price lawyer ? The players in the last 2 years of the CBA will receive a salary that they themselves have personally negotiated. This is not an hourly rate increase like a normal union bargaining !!

One question that never comes up is how come the agents are never accountable. The players always blaming the owners for signing dumb contracts, but the fact is agents are for ever playing one team off against another and asking for unreasonable contracts from all parties - teams Frankly the players just wash their hands of any responsibility. Who me ...naw .. i just let my agent take care of those details. Yeah Dick head he`s doing all your dirty work behind the scenes so you don`t need to accept any responsibility

Boston Canucker wrote:Whenever they play hockey again, I'll be back, watching intensely, the addiction stays. But I can't stomach another article/report analyzing the lockout negotiations/status. I'm avoiding it all as best as possible until we get to the other side. I still stay with my original prediction, hockey by Jan 1, but who knows....until the puck drops.

I'm the opposite. I don't know how much hockey I'll bother watching when they get back, but reading some of the news on the negotiations is entertaining. Favourites are Bob MacKenzie (TSN), Pierre LeBrun(TSN/ESPN), Scott Burnside (ESPN) and Katie Strang (ESPN).

@tsnscottcullen: Re: last RT, MLB salaries up 39% from '03 to '12 ($2.3M to $3.2M). NHL salaries up 32%, from $1.85M to $2.45M, including 24% rollback in '04

Average wages up 32% over ten years including a 24% roll back. Poor hard done by players.......

By QMI Agency Share on facebookShare on stumbleuponShare on liveShare on farkMore Sharing Services

Flyers forward Scott Hartnell doesn't expect any of Roman Hamrlik's teammates to defend the Capitals defenceman should he get in trouble on the ice. (BRUCE BENNETT/Getty Images/AFP file photo)

Roman Hamrlik may have to fear for his safety.

Speaking on Team 1200 in Ottawa on Tuesday, Philadelphia Flyers forward Scott Hartnell said he doesn't expect any players on the Washington Capitals to run to their teammate's defence if he gets in trouble on the ice.

"I don't think anyone other than Roman Hamrlik in Washington -- a guy who has made $50-to-$60 million from the (NHL Players' Association) -- has turned on us. You're going to have guys like that," Hartnell told the radio station. "I can't wait to see what his teammates do when guys go after him. To sell the whole PA under the bus and to stick up for a guy like that is going to be tough."

What a complete ass Hartnell is can you imagine a player saying

(A) Hamrlik made $50-60 million from the PA !!, nothing to do with the fans or the owners then Scott, who pays the guy the PA or the Owner ? is this guy brain dead, sad to think he will even get a vote, wiith his IQ he's not in the position to make a judgement

(B) Suggesting that he may be physically abused because Hamrlik exercised his right to speak freely

By QMI Agency Share on facebookShare on stumbleuponShare on liveShare on farkMore Sharing Services

Flyers forward Scott Hartnell doesn't expect any of Roman Hamrlik's teammates to defend the Capitals defenceman should he get in trouble on the ice. (BRUCE BENNETT/Getty Images/AFP file photo)

Roman Hamrlik may have to fear for his safety.

Speaking on Team 1200 in Ottawa on Tuesday, Philadelphia Flyers forward Scott Hartnell said he doesn't expect any players on the Washington Capitals to run to their teammate's defence if he gets in trouble on the ice.

"I don't think anyone other than Roman Hamrlik in Washington -- a guy who has made $50-to-$60 million from the (NHL Players' Association) -- has turned on us. You're going to have guys like that," Hartnell told the radio station. "I can't wait to see what his teammates do when guys go after him. To sell the whole PA under the bus and to stick up for a guy like that is going to be tough."

What a complete ass Hartnell is can you imagine a player saying

(A) Hamrlik made $50-60 million from the PA !!, nothing to do with the fans or the owners then Scott, who pays the guy the PA or the Owner ? is this guy brain dead, sad to think he will even get a vote, wiith his IQ he's not in the position to make a judgement

(B) Suggesting that he may be physically abused because Hamrlik exercised his right to speak freely

A sad days for unions and democracy when players talk like this

What's the issue? Scottie's left-wing knee-jerk belief in unions and sticking it to the man, and covering his own ass obviously superceed Hamrlik's belief in having his own opinion, getting paid fairly and just playing the damned game, and not costing 1/3 of the players their only or last year in the league.

The sheep mentality of guys like Hartnell amazes me, but we see it in the holier than thou Left all the time.

Fred wrote:(A) Hamrlik made $50-60 million from the PA !!, nothing to do with the fans or the owners then Scott, who pays the guy the PA or the Owner ? is this guy brain dead, sad to think he will even get a vote, wiith his IQ he's not in the position to make a judgement

I think what Fartsmell means is that without the PA and his brothers before this generation and their fight for better pay, Hamrlik would be making a whole pile less than the gravy he's on now...Hartnell would be right too, because without their union, pay and conditions of employment would still be (adjusted for inflation,) somewhere in the 1960s

(B) Suggesting that he may be physically abused because Hamrlik exercised his right to speak freely

A sad days for unions and democracy when players talk like this

Its a union Fred, would you be happy if Hamrlik was your employee and was running his mouth about you his boss? It's the same thing. You are a member, you get one vote and you shut up, you don't give the other side ammunition...look what the NhL charged whatshisfuck in Detroit for beaking off?

As for Hartnell , well he's just being a good soldier, exactly what he needs to be, to be a good hockey player, team mate, union member, And emloyee...wish we could trade Luongo for him